Journal of Cleaner Production 242 (2020) 118402

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Planning for sustainable stakeholder engagement based on the

assessment of conflicting interests in projects
Amir Bahadorestani a, *, Nader Naderpajouh b, Rehan Sadiq c
a
Faculty of Engineering, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Construction Engineering and Management Group, Ferdowsi Univ. of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran
b
School of Property, Construction, and Project Management, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT Univ.), Melbourne, VIC, 3001, Australia
c
School of Engineering, Univ. of British Columbia, Okanagan Campus, 3333 University Way, Kelowna, BC, V1V 1V7, Canada

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The absence or lack of effective stakeholder engagement during project life cycle, especially at the earlier
Received 1 April 2019 stages of planning and implementation often negatively impacts the expected performance of projects.
Received in revised form These coupled consequences of the lack of contextual knowledge from the stakeholders as well as lack of
9 September 2019
their support in the field necessitates effective stakeholder engagement. However, this integration faces
Accepted 11 September 2019
Available online 15 September 2019
challenges such as limitations of project resources and conflicting interests of the stakeholders. In this
sense, project resources can be allocated based on the priorities of the fields of conflicts to facilitate
stakeholder engagement of the projects. The goal of this paper is to provide a framework to enhance
Keywords:
Projects
effectiveness of the stakeholder engagement in projects by systematically ranking the potential conflicts
Sustainability while combining the viewpoints of stakeholders and project management team. For this purpose, we
Stakeholder engagement draw on stakeholder theory, value-based management, matrix-based dependency modeling, and Total
Management for stakeholder Quality Management to develop a stakeholder engagement framework while considering fuzzy inputs
Management of stakeholder for reflecting the ambiguities at the project life cycle. The proposed approach is then applied to plan
Conflicts stakeholder engagement in case of a green building project in Iran. Practically, application of the pro-
Quality Function Deployment posed framework facilitates stakeholder engagement for project managers in line with sustainable goals
Green building
through early assessment of the fields of potential conflicts of interests.
© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction range of stakeholders in project plans, complexity of project plans

Sustainable development requires an understanding of the
relationship among humans and the natural environment (UN,
2015). One major consideration in the projects is the participation
of various stakeholders with diverse interests in project activities
and outputs (Abidin, 2010). On the one hand, stakeholder
engagement plays key role in the development and implementa-
tion of projects, and in ensuring the success of projects (Eyiah-
Botwe et al., 2016; Lam et al., 2011; Wallbauma et al., 2010). On
the other hand, one major activity to ensure effective and sus-
tainable stakeholder engagement in projects is to address the
conflicting interests, while involving them in decision-making
through steering committees (Aarseth et al., 2017; Luyet et al.,
2012). With the sustainability requirements to include a wider
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: amir.bahador.1990@gmail.com (A. Bahadorestani), nnp@rmit.
edu.au (N. Naderpajouh), rehan.sadiq@ubc.ca (R. Sadiq).
is increasing. This process is more challenging considering the
resource limitations.
According to the stakeholder engagement literature, two main
approaches to stakeholder engagement plan are salience-based
engagement and demand-based engagement. In the salience-
based engagement, managers focus on the level of stakeholders'
salience to prioritize the importance of stakeholders in stakeholder
engagement (Li et al., 2018b; Mitchell et al., 1997; Olander and
Landin, 2005). This approach is in line with management of stake-
holders approach (Eskerod and Huemann, 2013; Li et al., 2018a), in
which the prominent stakeholders are the basis of prioritizing. The
main disadvantage of this approach is that the stakeholder view-
points are not contained in the decision-making process and
managers decide only based on their perception of stakeholders'
salience. In the demand-based engagement, the engagement is
prioritized based on their required resources (Seyis and Ergen,
2017; Wei et al., 2016). This approach is in line with management
for stakeholders approach (Eskerod and Huemann, 2013; Li et al.,
2018a), in which the stakeholders’ rights and values are the basis

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118402
0959-6526/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 A. Bahadorestani et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 242 (2020) 118402
of prioritizing. Since this approach aims to fulfill more urgent de-
mands, it may result in the neglect of key stakeholders with critical
impact. As a result, it is important to integrate both approaches in
the decision-making process.
Stakeholders are often concerned about the conflict of their
interests within the network of project (Lin et al., 2017; Wallbauma
et al., 2010). Yu et al. (2019) studied management of conflicting
interests of stakeholders in sustainable projects such as urban
redevelopment projects by considering salience attributes of
stakeholders, key concerns of stakeholders, and their attitudes.
However, there is a further need to include the intensity of the
importance of conflicting interests from stakeholders' perspectives
to consider their demands and prioritizing the importance of
various fields of conflicts while considering their salience. This
approach may further facilitate integration of stakeholders' and
decision-makers’ viewpoints to prioritize the area of conflicts prior
to engage the relevant in the process in steering committees of
projects.
To address this natural step forward, a framework is proposed in
this paper in which both management of stakeholders and man-
agement for stakeholders approaches are considered for decision-
making through planning and prioritizing participation of stake-
holders in the steering committees. This framework is focused on
the integrated input of a range of stakeholders on the importance of
their conflict of interests, so as to facilitate sustainable stakeholder
engagement. More importantly, this integration aims to balance the
resource limitation with the requirements of engaging a wider
range of stakeholders, as stakeholder engagement will be based on
prioritizations of the conflicting interests. After an in-depth review
of the literature, the proposed framework is proposed to assess
available conflicting interests of the stakeholders by adopting
quality function deployment (QFD). The proposed framework is
then applied to a case of green building construction project to
demonstrate its implementation.
2. Literature review
This section argues the necessity of extending the stakeholder
engagement insights to be aligned with sustainability goals in
projects, while highlighting the attention to conflicting interests.
2.1. Stakeholder engagement in projects
In projects, stakeholders are the individuals, groups, and orga-
nizations that impacted by, can impact the project or perceive that
they will be affected by the work or outcomes of the project in a
positive or negative way, such as employees, suppliers, share-
holders, regulators, lobby groups, environmentalists, financial or-
ganizations, the media (PMI, 2017). So far, several models and
frameworks have been developed to categorize project stake-
holders based on their attributes. Three-Attribute Model (TAM) is a
widely used model, in which the stakeholders are identified by
power, legitimacy, and urgency (Mitchell et al., 1997). For example,
stakeholders who are strong in all three attributes are named
definitive stakeholders. The stakeholder typology models put the
stakeholders with the same attributes or behavior in a specific type.
For example, if the client and main contractor have high level of
power, legitimacy, and urgency, the managers consider them as
definitive type as TAM introduced. These models facilitate the
stakeholder identification, especially for complex projects with a
large set of stakeholder. Because of the dynamic nature managers
should update the stakeholders’ list and attributes continuously to
be able engage with them effectively.
Managers need to have a clear plan to engage stakeholders in
order to achieve the project's predetermined goals and satisfy a
range of stakeholders. In these conditions, the communication will
be formed based on mutual values. For this purpose, it is essential
to promote engagement methods which allow consideration of
diverse points of view (Healey, 1996). For example, providing
stakeholders with opportunities to speak without any fear (or
creation of psychological safety at the project); ensuring that all
opinions are respected; and enabling stakeholders to influence
resulting actions (Senecah, 2004). There is a consensus in this area
that proper stakeholder engagement is essential for managers to
achieve success for their planned goals and can help ‘capture
different forms of knowledge’ through ‘social learning’. Proper
stakeholder engagement plan facilitates stakeholder management
by considering their interest in view of the project values. There-
fore, Stakeholder engagement should be taken as a core element of
“sustainable development” plans (Dobrovolskiene_ et al., 2017; Liu
et al., 2013; Yang et al., 2016).
In sustainable development, stakeholder engagement includes
more effective management of relationships among stakeholders
considering both short and long-term stability (Alizar et al., 2008).
Therefore, stakeholder engagement is an imperative practice to
balance between the environmental, economic and social condi-
tions in projects, (Ahmad and Aibinu, 2017; Darko et al., 2017;
Rondinel-Oviedo and Schreier-Barreto, 2018). As a result, sustain-
able stakeholder engagement aims to involve project stakeholders
and decision-makers during project life cycle and resolve the
conflicts by dialogue-oriented approaches to make the sustain-
ability goals more achievable (Mathur et al., 2008; O'Dochartaigh,
2017).
Since each stakeholder has a specific definition of the project's
success; they consider the project as a successful achievement
when they achieve their own goals of participating in the project
(Davis, 2014, 2016). In this way, project management team should
have detailed insights and information on the goals of stakeholders'
participation in projects so as to satisfy stakeholders while
advancing sustainability of the projects (Hwang and Tan, 2012;
Pietrosemoli and Monroy, 2013). However, in this condition, proper
stakeholder engagement leads managers to formulate dialogue in
order to identify undetected stakeholders' knowledge
(Simanjuntak, 2017; Yin et al., 2018). With such deliberation, both
managers and project stakeholders can achieve deeper under-
standing of the shared values and concerns towards more realistic
decision making. In this situation, managers can plan stakeholder
engagement through steering committees. Therefore, successful
projects implementation requires a sustainable stakeholder
engagement plan, while considering all existing value streams
(Qian et al., 2015).
2.1.1. Value streams in projects
In a general sense, values direct social interactions by signifying
the importance of objects and actions (Heisler, 2017; Schwartz,
2006). In the project network, the success of project management
team will be determined by their efforts to satisfy stakeholder
fairly, while considering both project and stakeholder values
(Eskerod and Larsen, 2018). From this perspective, there are three
main approaches for stakeholder engagement: (i) absolute atten-
tion to project values: in this approach, managers will allocate the
resources to stakeholders that put more values in project (stake-
holders with higher level of salience). In other words, project's
values are a vital criterion in decision-making and stakeholders
support those values (Silvius, 2017). This approach is called as
management of stakeholders. (ii) absolute attention to stakeholders'
values: in this approach, managers believe that stakeholders' rights
and values are vital (Eskerod and Huemann, 2013). Therefore, they
make the decisions based on stakeholders' rights, even if the
stakeholder values are not contributing to value creation for
 A. Bahadorestani et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 242 (2020) 118402
projects. Generally, this approach highlights stakeholders' interest
rather than their role in the project (Silvius, 2017). This approach is
called as management for stakeholders. (iii) integrative attention to
both project's and stakeholders' values: in this approach, managers
try to engage with stakeholders, while balancing stakeholders'
values and project's values in decision-making. This approach is
called as management of/for stakeholders or hybrid approach. This
integrative approach can be developed as a proper tool to ensure
sustainability purposes.
Currently, sustainability and social responsibility are two critical
concepts for management of/for stakeholders (Marcelino-Sa daba
et al., 2015). Stakeholder-associated issues are vital to the ulti-
mate risk profile of projects (Yang and Zou, 2014). At the moment,
social responsibility is the main driver for implementing projects in
the path of sustainability (Darko et al., 2017); because it facilitates a
balance between economic, environmental, and social goals (Lin
et al., 2017), while it also helps management of/for stakeholders
(Liao et al., 2016). Since the fields of conflicting interests among
stakeholders occur across their value streams, it can be used as a
practical link to balance resource limitation and the need for
further engagement of stakeholders. Therefore, attention to
stakeholders’ concerns and resolving the conflicting interests are
vital for an effective stakeholder engagement.
2.1.2. Stakeholders’ concerns
In a relationship network, concerns of stakeholders arise from
the conflict of interests or values (Natee et al., 2016). For example, in
view of environmental impacts in sustainable projects (Ogunde
et al., 2017), the root of stakeholders' concerns is often the uncer-
tainty of achieving their main objectives due to the clash between
their interests with the project and other stakeholders (Wallbauma
et al., 2010). The dynamics of stakeholder concerns unfold in a
stakeholder community network. In this sense, the social network
approach into analysis of stakeholder-associated issues are estab-
lished in order to analyze the concerns of stakeholders and their
interactions in the projects, e.g., Bo (2015) and Valentin et al. (2018).
Stakeholders often have different, and even conflicting concerns
with regard to satisfying project sustainability. While stakeholders'
concerns may become more sensitive, sometime managers have to
compromise some stakeholders' concerns due to the resource
constraints. For example, some of the most important conflicts in
sustainable construction projects are rooted in the higher costs
compared to traditional building constructions, as well as lack of
awareness of stakeholders from implementation of these con-
struction projects and life cycle benefits (AlSanad, 2015; Hwang and
Tan, 2012; Ogunde et al., 2017). In these cases, project management
team needs to have a thorough picture of the stakeholders’ values
and concerns and how the resources can be used to address the
concerns through prioritizing and thereby resolving the fields of
conflicts.
2.1.3. Conflict resolution
Stakeholder interest is highly dependent on the possibility of
raising the demands or exerting influence on the processes asso-
ciated with the project (Lin et al., 2018; Olander and Landin, 2005;
Scholes and Johnson, 2002). Stakeholder interest emerges from a
range of expectations and values in view of project objectives (Lin
et al., 2018). An effective stakeholder engagement plan is a
requirement to inform stakeholders on project values and con-
flicting interests of the stakeholders. An essential component of
this plan is the careful attention to the identification, prioritization,
and resolution of conflicting interests; as it is important for man-
agers to have a clear plan with minimum conflicts, and to address
urgent conflicts prior to the conflicts with lower degree of criticality
(Mok et al., 2017). Conflict management models are either
3
structural or process models, while the former deals with factors
impacting conflicts in projects and the latter deals with the
sequence of events involved in the conflict. Process models are
more dynamic and structural models are more static in nature
(Appelbaum et al., 1999; Sudhakar, 2015). To address complexities
and conflicting interests, process and structure models can be used
as a proper tool in conflict resolution.
2.2. Quality Function Deployment
Quality Function Deployment (QFD) is a systematic method to
channel the input of end-users in the development of outputs and
products (Hernandez and Aspinwall, 2007). The concept of QFD was
first created by Shigeru Mizuno and Yoji Akaoin in 1960s (Moreno
Marchal, 2017). Their goal was to develop a quality assurance
method that would integrate the customer/client satisfaction in the
design of a product or service before it was manufactured (Akao
and Mizuno, 1994). In other words, QFD is dedicated to translate
requirements of the end-users into activities associated with the
development of products and services (Carnevalli and Miguel,
2008). Since then QFD has been used in a range of problems both
for practical and theoretical purposes, such as selection of alter-
native product or processes (Carnevalli and Miguel, 2008; Natee
et al., 2016).
In project-based industries, PMI (2017) emphasizes that the use
of QFD facilitates determination of the critical characteristics for
new product development and can be used to channel the voice of
end-users. Hernandez and Aspinwall (2007) suggested that the
construction sector should further benefit from the use of QFD like
the manufacturing sector. This is reflected in the body of research in
the field of project studies, as QFD models are developed for a range
of purposes including project planning and design, material se-
lection, or stakeholder engagement. Koskela (1992); Lam et al.
(2010); Prasad and Chakraborty (2013), and Kasaei et al. (2014)
used the QFD method to select construction materials. Natee
et al. (2016) used the QFD approach in improving project plan-
ning by tracking customer demands and expectations. For this
purpose, the input of clients is translated into design and functional
items. Within these studies, QFD approach has been also used to
collect and identify stakeholders' needs and expectations. For
example, Menassa and Baer (2014) developed a QFD based frame-
work to assess the role of stakeholders in sustainable project
retrofit decisions. The QFD frameworks can be further extended to
include the determined salience by decision makers in addition to
their conflicting objectives.
2.2.1. House of Quality
QFD usually includes four phases and each phase is defined by a
matrix in which the relationship between the components of hor-
izontal and vertical domains (rows and columns) is determined.
Domains represent the primary classification of components in a
system. The matrices are interconnected and can be analyzed by
the concept of “House of Quality” (HoQ). In each matrix, two do-
mains of "WHATs" and "HOWs" are compared and their interrela-
tionship is weighted. In general QFD, the "WHATs" are generally
end-user requirements and the "HOWs" are methods to meet
them. In each stage, "HOWs" are transferred into the next phase as
"WHATs". While HoQs can be developed in different forms (Shahin
et al., 2016), Fig. 1 shows a general HoQ with its details. So far, many
dependency modeling tools such as Design Structure Matrix (DSM),
Dependency Mapping Matrix (DMM), Multiple-Domain Matrix
(MDM), have been developed and used to manage the complexities
in systems. Since these tools can consider clustering and
sequencing within and between domains, their application helps to
analyze the phenomena with more accurate reflection of the real-
4 A. Bahadorestani et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 242 (2020) 118402
Fig. 1. A House of quality or MDM (adapted from Kreimeyer and Lindemann (2011)
and Maurer (2007)).
world trade-offs (Danilovic and Browning, 2007). These tools can
facilitate management in complex systems as they are combined
within QFD, as shown in Fig. 1, adapted from Lindemann et al.
(2009) and Eigner and Maletz (2008). In this sense, DMM and
DSM illustrate the inter- and intra-dependency domain matrices,
respectively, both directionally and non-directionally. In other
words, the matrix elements reflect either a value or a vector
(Lindemann et al., 2009). DSM illustrates the intensity of influence
between the components of a certain domain, i.e., correlation
matrix in QFD (Maurer, 2017) and DMM illustrates the matrix
connecting components belonging to two different domains
(Lindemann et al., 2009; Maurer, 2007), as it considers dependency
between components of two distinct domains like relationship
matrix in QFD. Therefore, the components of the first domain are
aligned along the vertical axis, while components of the second
domain are aligned on the horizontal axis. However, as DMM and
DSM can be used as non-directional dependencies, they can be
replaced by relationship and correlation matrix in QFD, respec-
tively. In this situation, the matrix elements represent the intensity
of influence between two corresponding components. As Fig. 1
shows, DMM illustrates the relation between the components of
WHATs and corresponding components of HOWs in HoQ, and DSM
illustrates the comparison between the components of HOWs to
each other in HoQ. HoQ is then a well-stablished MDM, which
comprises part of the method of the QFD by DMM and DSM
(Maurer, 2007).
Sustainable stakeholder engagement needs a systematic
approach to translate various matrices including decision-makers’
and stakeholders' viewpoints. In this way, HoQ can contribute to
define a systematic approach in which the fields of stakeholders’
conflicts are prioritized. Through this systematic approach, man-
agers can allocate the resources for steering committees more
effectively.
3. Proposed model: ranking the fields of conflicts in projects
Project decision-makers always look for suitable tools to in-
crease the probability of success by capturing/creating/adding
values to the project (Shenhar et al., 2001). On the other hand, value
creation for the project depends on planning stakeholder engage-
ment through holding regular steering committee meetings (Hein
et al., 2017; Mushka, 2015). Therefore, it is critical to have a tool
in which both decision-makers’ and stakeholders’ viewpoints are
integrated to determine which conflicting interests will further
impact project values. In this situation, managers can prioritize
steering committees based on vital areas of conflict.
3.1. Developing QFD approach for translating a subject to another
subject in stakeholder engagement
In this study, we propose the theoretical concepts of QFD to
design the ranking matrix for the areas of conflict in projects. Fig. 2
shows the overall conceptual process to develop DMM to channel
conflicts of different stakeholders (Adapted from Bolar et al. (2017)
and Maurer (2017)). The applied DMM matrices in this process
contain the original order of components, without clustering. In the
first step, the DMMs’ inputs will be processed to be used in trans-
lation process. Actually, WHATs and HOWs are two distinct do-
mains and each of the domains include categorized components.
The elements of each matrix aim to illustrate the relationship be-
tween a component of domain WHAT and the corresponding
component of domain HOW. DMMs also help to prioritize the
components of WHATs and HOWs after averaging all matrix ele-
ments associated with the corresponding component in horizontal
or vertical directions.
3.2. Designing the ranking matrix relevant to the fields of conflicts
The ultimate goal of designing the ranking matrix is to illustrate
the importance of identified areas of conflicts for project to have a
suitable tool for planning stakeholder engagement through holding
regular steering committees. In other words, the final step will be a
matrix that represents the importance of area of conflicts for the
project, while considering both the stakeholders' and project
managers’ viewpoints. In this section, we describe the basic prin-
ciples for developing the matrix based on the QFD approach. The
values of the matrix elements are assigned by experts and stake-
holders as it will be explained in the following as well as the case
study. The low and high value indicate negligible and significant
relationship between the components of vertical and horizontal
domains, respectively. The matrix that represents the value of the
vertical and horizontal relationships is called DMM (relationship
matrix). After forming DMMs for designing the matrix of the fields
of conflicts for the project, the developed DMM is formed by
multiplying the DMMs. The process to form the relationship and
developed DMMs to rank the fields of conflicts are based on the
following steps:
Step 1. Formation and introduction of the fields of conflict/
stakeholders matrix
In this DMM, the columns of the matrix represent project
stakeholders and the rows of the matrix represent the conflicting
interests of the stakeholders. The elements of this DMM are
determined through the input of each stakeholder, as they specify
the importance of the fields of conflicts for themselves. The matrix
ABm
n in Equation (1) shows the fields of conflicts/stakeholders
matrix.
 A. Bahadorestani et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 242 (2020) 118402 5

Fig. 2. Development of QFD approach for ranking the conflicts.

Step 2. Formation and introduction of the stakeholders/salience
attributes matrix
The stakeholders/salience attributes matrix represents the
salience attributes of each stakeholder in relation to the project.
The stakeholder attributes are the properties that play key role to
determine the importance of each stakeholder, and consequently
their potential impact on the direction of the project. This matrix is
determined by managers or project management team members
who are qualified to assess stakeholders' salience attributes. Each
element of this DMM represents the value of an attribute for the
related stakeholder. The matrix BCn
k in Equation (1) shows the
stakeholders/salience attributes matrix.
Step 3. Formation and introduction of the fields of conflicts/
salience attributes matrix
According to the rules for multiplication of matrices, we can
multiply two matrices, if the number of horizontal direction com-
ponents (horizontal domain) of the first matrix equals the number
of vertical direction components (vertical domain) of the second
matrix. Also, the horizontal domain of the first matrix must be
homogeneous with the vertical domain of the second matrix. The
vertical and horizontal directions of the resulting matrix are
derived from the first and second DMMs, respectively. The devel-
oped DMM (ACm
k ) in Equation (1) shows the fields of conflict/
salience attributes matrix, as it is generated by multiplying ABm
n
in BCn
k . This matrix shows the relationship between each field of
conflict with each salience attribute.
0 1 0 1
a 1 b1 / a1 bn b1 c1 / b1 c k
B C B C
@ « 1 « A
@ « 1 « A
am b1 / am bn m
n bn c1 / bn ck n
k
0 1
a1 c1 / a1 ck
B C
¼@ « 1 « A
am c1 / am ck m
k
Step 4. Formation and introduction of the salience attributes/
stakeholders' types matrix
Although Equation (1) shows the relationship between the
conflicts and the stakeholders’ salience attributes, but it has a
fundamental weakness. The root of this weakness is the lack of the
combined impact of all stakeholders' salience attributes together.
Mitchell et al. (1997) proposed the three-attribute model to identify
stakeholders' types based on stakeholder salience attributes. In this
study, we adopted the three-attribute model to determine the
relationships among the salience attributes with the types of
stakeholders as shown in the DMM in Table 1.
Step 5. Formation and introduction of the fields of conflicts/
stakeholders' types matrix
The new developed DMM is obtained from multiplication of the
co-relationship matrix obtained from Equation (1) to the DMM of
stakeholder type, as shown in Equation (2). Each element of the
matrix is interpreted as the value of relationship of each field of
conflicts with stakeholders’ types.
0 1 0 1
a1 c1 / a1 ck c1 d1 / c1 dj
B C B «
@ « 1 « A
@ 1 « C A
/
am c1 / am ck m
k ck d1 ck dj k
j
0 1 (2)
a1 d1 / a1 dj
B « C
¼@ « 1 A
am d1 / am dj m
j
The final outcome can be processed further to facilitate inter-
pretation of the results. As matrices [ac], [cd] are representing the
properties “ac” and “cd” respectively, it is concluded that all ele-
ments of matrix [ad] have the same property. As a result, one can
compare the rows or the columns with each other to rank the
importance of the conflicts as well as the dynamics of the stake-
holders’ types with each other. For example, if a1d1 and a2d2 are
two matrix elements, we can compare and specify their relation-
ship intensity between two domains. In this case if a1d1>a2d2, it is
inferred that the relationship between a1 and d1 (the components
of two domains) is stronger than the relationship between a2 and
d2. Therefore, a1d1 is more influential in the relationship of two
(1) domains and can be prioritized. Also, the rank of the components of
a domain can be calculated by averaging all matrix elements of
corresponding row/column and thereby comparing the values of
components in a specific domain. These principles are valid for all
matrices.
Step 6. Formation and introduction of the stakeholders' types/
project values matrix
Stakeholders’ types/project values matrix represents the rela-
tionship between stakeholder type and project values. In other
words, this step determines to what extent a specific type of
stakeholder can create or add value for the project. In this situation,
members of project management team that are involved in stra-
tegic decision-making should determine this matrix, because it is
important that the respondents/participants have a comprehensive
vision about all stakeholders as well as the project values.

Table 1
The relationships among the stakeholders’ salience attributes with the types of stakeholders.

Salience attribute Dormant Discretionary Demanding Dominant Dangerous Dependent Definitive

Power (Very) High (Very) Low (Very) Low (Very) High (Very) High (Very) Low (Very) High
Legitimacy (Very) Low (Very) High (Very) Low (Very) High (Very) Low (Very) High (Very) High
Urgency (Very) Low (Very) Low (Very) High (Very) Low (Very) High (Very) High (Very) High
6 A. Bahadorestani et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 242 (2020) 118402
Step 7. Formation and introduction of the fields of conflicts/
project values matrix
This matrix aims to represent the importance of each field of
conflicts for the project. The developed DMM (AEm
s ) in Equation
(3) shows the fields of conflicts/project values matrix, as it is
generated by multiplying ADm
j in DEj
s . Higher value of the ele-
ments of matrix corresponds to higher importance of the conflict
area.
0 1 0 1
a1 d1 / a1 dj d1 e1 / d1 es
B « 1 « C B « C
@ A
@ « 1 A
am d1 / am dj m
j dj e1 / dj es j
s
0 1
a1 e1 / a1 es
B C
¼@ « 1 « A
am e1 / am es m
s
As shown in Fig. 3, the rating matrix is the result of the waterfall
process using the QFD matrices. This matrix will function as the
multi-objective tool for planning stakeholder engagement.
The outline of the proposed model is depicted in Fig. 4. In this
section, a ranking matrix is presented based on the application of
QFD for prioritizing the areas of conflicts among the stakeholders
within the project. This model aims to specify how conflicting areas
impact project values, while integrating both managers' and
stakeholders' viewpoints in the decision-making process. For this
purpose, we first translated the importance that conflicting in-
terests have for stakeholders to the importance of the conflicting
interests for the stakeholders' types in a specific project and then
translated it to a ranking matrix. As Fig. 4 shows, the importance of
conflicting interests based on stakeholders' viewpoints, stake-
holders' salience based on decision-makers’ viewpoints, the
importance of each stakeholder type for project values based on
decision-makers’ viewpoints have been integrated into the trans-
lating process. Additionally, in order to address the vagueness in
the assigned values and challenge of assigning absolute numbers,
the model has been proposed with the fuzzy inputs. As a result,
sustainability in this model emphasizes on planning for stake-
holder engagement based on sustainable relationship with short-
and long-term stability, while all value streams (especially the
values relevant to sustainable projects mentioned in sustainability
indicators such as LEED) from both project managers' and stake-
holders’ perspectives are integrated in the stakeholder
engagement.
4. Framework implementation for a case of green building
project
4.1. A background of green buildings in Iran
As a developing country, the trend of green building construc-
tion is rising in Iran and different dimensions of this trend are
explored by several studies. For example, Heravi and Qaemi (2014)
identified and evaluated the design and construction measures
concerning building energy efficiency in Iran. Meiboudi et al. (2018)
designed and validated a national rating system for green schools in
Iran based on global standards. Zarghami et al. (2018) customized
the categories and criteria points of well-known sustainability
assessment tools regarding the priorities in sustainability concerns
of Iran to develop an Iranian sustainability assessment tool that is
suitable for local residential buildings. A common theme across
these studies is the belief to adopt common sustainability in-
dicators such as LEED, BREEAM, CASBEE or SBTool, as benchmarks
for the evaluation process by Iranian professional experts, and to
revise the points allocated in Iranian assessment tool to contextu-
alize them. So far, many barriers and challenges including but not
limited to “lack of government incentives (e.g. social, political,
financial supports)”, “low awareness from beneficial outputs of
project”, “higher costs of these projects rather than conventional
buildings”, “low level of available technology for project imple-
mentations” have been identified that result in the growth of
implementing these projects in Iran (Flisijn, 2018). Despite lack of
governmental incentives, these projects are often launched as a
flagship for reputational purposes in major companies to introduce
themselves as pioneers in sustainable construction projects. This
trend contributed in growing implementation of green buildings in
(3) Iran. As a result, the government incentives and public awareness of
beneficial outputs of these projects are gradually forming. While
the focus of the majority of the studies has been in green rating,
there is still a need to address conflicts of interest in stakeholder
management and its impact in setting sustainability goals to ach-
ieve the most possible supports from various communities in Iran.
4.2. Case study
In this study, the case of Kowsar green building was chosen, as a
high-rise residential green building that is located in Mashhad,
northeast of Iran. In this project, the materials which are controlled
to be compatible with natural environment and sustainability goals
are used. The sustainable design components of the project include
using solar panels (for reducing/saving fossil energy), recycled
water, double skin facade, green roof for the residents and a linear
park with a bike path in height, that can also serve the people in the
wider community. Intelligent "BMS" system for each residential
unit, a winter garden on the north side floors, storages in the
basement with easy access from the central core are the other
features of the units. This project was specifically selected as the
case study, since it provided a rich context to explore engagement
of a wider range of stakeholders.
4.3. The nature of applied data in the case study
In accordance with the proposed model, we have used fuzzy set
theory with the Likert scale from 1 to 9 for the application of the
fuzzy input, as shown in the membership function in Fig. 5.
The linguistic variables showing the qualitative data is con-
verted into quantitative input as shown in Table 2.
In order to defuzzify the data, Equation (4) was used as it was
suggested by Demirel et al. (2018):
L þ ð2*MÞ þ R
A¼ (4)
4
A: defuzzification value
L: the lower limit value of the triangular fuzzy number
R: the upper limit value of the triangular fuzzy number
M: the mid value of the triangular fuzzy number
If: a: (l1,m1,r1) b: (l2,m2,r2)
For multiplication of the fuzzy input from two matrices, the
multiplication rule of the fuzzy numbers is used according to
Equations (5) and (6), using technology tools such as Microsoft
Excel.
a.b ¼ (l1. l2, m1.m2, r1. r2) (5)
a þ b ¼ (l1þ l2, m1þm2, r1þ r2) (6)
 A. Bahadorestani et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 242 (2020) 118402 7

Fig. 3. Waterfall relationship of QFD matrices for designing ranking matrix.

8 A. Bahadorestani et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 242 (2020) 118402

Fig. 4. Proposed model.

4.4. Identifying the project stakeholders and respondents
The extent of the process to identify stakeholders depends on
the type of each project as well as its scope and complexity.
Stakeholder identification can be performed by qualitative
methods such as questionnaire survey and/or interviews (Acharya
et al., 2010; Mishra et al., 2008; Thamhain, 2013; Williams, 1997).
In this study we used pilot study, questionnaire survey and in-
terviews to identify stakeholders by project management team in
client organization. First of all, we conducted a pilot study in the
 A. Bahadorestani et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 242 (2020) 118402
Fig. 5. Membership function of the fuzzy input.
Table 2
Fuzzy numbers in this study.
Fuzzy number Linguistic variable
(1,1,3) Very low
(1,3,5) Low
(3,5,7) Medium
(5,7,9) High
(7,9,9) Very high
client organization to select experts (questionnaire respondents
and interview participants). Table 3 shows the characteristics of
experts. In the open questionnaire, participants were asked to
identify individuals, organizations or other projects that can affect
the project or be affected by it. In the data collection process, inputs
were obtained from 13 experts from the client, as the case study
aimed to reflect the challenges of the client in exploring the con-
flicting interests of the stakeholders. As a result, stakeholders "S1,
S2, S3, S4, S5, S6, S7, S8" (within Table 4) were identified in the first
survey (questionnaire distribution). Then through snowballing we
aimed to verify the initial list and identify other potentially missing
stakeholders from the questionnaires, which included three
stakeholders that were added to the initial list. Table 4 shows the
final list of stakeholders at the start of implementation phase of the
project. In order to collect data from stakeholders, we chose in-
dividuals that were involved substantially with the project and
have more information about the concerns and conflicts, as the
position of respondents is shown in Table 4.
4.5. Identify the areas of the conflicting interests of the stakeholders
In this case study, first, we extracted the list of all potential value
streams between the stakeholders by an in-depth literature review
to synthesize potential categories and then we conducted a survey
to rate them for identified conflicts. As shown in Table 5, 23 value
streams were extracted from general- and sustainable construction
project literature to provide a comprehensive collection for this
study and potential future studies. Some value streams might not
be present in general construction projects such as C15 and C16.
However, we used these value streams as fields of conflicts (in the
line of research purpose) in this study. These value streams are the
dimensions that conflicting interests are occurred in. After the
Table 3
Characteristics of experts.
Role
Project manager
Project manager consultant
HR manager
Financial director
Experts of technical office
9
interviews with the stakeholders, they were asked to rate the
identified fields of conflict from their perspectives as displayed in
Appendix A (Fig.A.1).
4.6. Modeling process
In the following, the modeling process is presented for the case
study.
Step 1. Formation and introduction of the fields of conflicts/
stakeholders matrix
The relational matrix was determined through the input of each
stakeholder to show the level of conflicting interests of the stake-
holders from each stakeholder's perspective. The details of this
matrix are displayed in Appendix A (Fig.A.1). In this step, after a
semi-structured interviews with each of the stakeholders, they
stated their opinion about the identified conflicts. In other words,
they answered to this question that“to what extent this field of
conflict is vital for you to continue to collaborate with the project?”.
Then stakeholders responded to it through Likert's scales (Table 2).
Step 2. Formation and introduction of the stakeholders/salience
attributes matrix
This matrix has been formed by project experts, who are from
the client side in this case study. We conducted an interview with
each expert and asked them to determine stakeholders' salience
attributes in accordance with fuzzy data. Finally, we averaged the
inputs, as the details of this matrix are displayed in Appendix A
(Fig.A.2).
Step 3. Formation and introduction of the fields of conflicts/
salience attributes matrix:
This DMM is obtained from the multiplication of the matrices
“fields of conflict/stakeholders matrix” and “stakeholders/salience
attributes matrix”, as proposed in Equation (1). The results of this
step for the case study are displayed in Appendix A (Fig.A.3).'
Step 4. Formation and introduction of the salience attributes/
stakeholders' types matrix
The salience attributes/stakeholders’ types matrix represents
the level of salience for various types of stakeholders. In this study,
the matrix is obtained through three-attribute model (TAM), which
was presented by Mitchell et al. (1997). TAM classifies stakeholders
based on their salience attributes, namely power, legitimacy and
urgency. Accordingly, seven types of stakeholders are defined for
each project. The stakeholder type is based on weakness and
strength of salience attributes. For example, definitive stakeholders
have high strength in power, legitimacy and urgency. According to
Fig.A.2, all stakeholders, except S4 and S9 are definitive stake-
holders. Because they exhibit high strength in power, legitimacy
and urgency. As shown in Fig. 5 and Table 2, fuzzy functions were
used to convert the qualitative responses into fuzzy numbers. The
details relevant to this step are displayed in Appendix A (Fig.A.4).
Step 5. Formation and introduction of the fields of conflicts/
stakeholders' types matrix:
The fields of conflict/stakeholders' types matrix are then
Degree (Number of experts) Practical experience
MSc. (1) 12
MSc.(1), B.S.(1) 12
B.S.(1) 12
MSc.(1) 8
MSc.(4), B.S.(4) 8
10 A. Bahadorestani et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 242 (2020) 118402

Table 4
Names of project stakeholders.

ID Stakeholder Respondent

S1 Client Project manager in Client

S2 Contractor Project manager in contractor
S3 Consultant (Designer) Senior expert
S4 Administration of Economic Affairs and Finance Senior expert
S5 Supervisor Supervisor in the project
S6 Municipality Expert in Municipality 9
S7 Building Engineering Organization (BEO) BEO's supervisor in the project
S8 Investor (financial supporter) Stockbroker
S9 Materials supplier Supplier manager
S10 Environmental Organization Expert in technical and engineering office
S11 Administration of Housing and Urban Development Expert in technical and construction office

Table 5
The fields of conflicts.

ID Value streams Reference

C1 Integrated implementation of project management processes Hwang and Ng (2013); Zhang and Zhao (2014)
C2 Project knowledge management Bosch and Pearce (2003); Durdyev et al. (2018); Herazo and Lizarralde (2016); Hwang and Ng
(2013); Kaiser et al. (2016); Lin et al. (2018); Whang and Kim (2015); Wilson and Rezgui
(2013); Yang et al. (2016)
C3 Cost Bosch and Pearce (2003); Hwang and Ng (2013); Menassa and Baer (2014); Yang et al. (2016)
C4 Project schedule Gareis et al. (2013); Hwang and Ng (2013); Silvius (2017); Yang et al. (2016)
C5 Quality of materials AlWaer et al. (2008); Chew (2010); Kubba (2012); Manoliadis et al. (2006); Qian et al. (2015)
C6 Quality of project equipment AlWaer et al. (2008); Kubba (2012); Manoliadis et al. (2006); Qian et al. (2015)
C7 Quality of design plans AlWaer et al. (2008); Kibert (2016); Kubba (2012); Manoliadis et al. (2006); Qian et al. (2015);
Yang et al. (2016)
C8 Quality of project implementation procedures AlWaer et al. (2008); Kibert (2016); Kubba (2012); Manoliadis et al. (2006); Qian et al. (2015);
Yang et al. (2016)
C9 Scope of the project AlSanad (2015); Eskerod and Huemann (2013); Hwang et al. (2017); Marcelino-Sa daba et al.
(2015); Olubunmi et al. (2016); Seyis and Ergen (2017); Shen et al. (2007); Yang and Zou
(2014); Yang et al. (2016); Zhang et al. (2017)
C10 Project risk assessment Gareis et al. (2013); Hwang and Ng (2013); Silvius (2017); SILvIuS et al. (2012)
C11 Cultural values Ahn et al. (2013); Alborz and Berardi (2015); Bal et al. (2013); Bellantuono et al. (2016);
Bohari et al. (2015); Chang et al. (2016); Gan et al. (2017); Gareis et al. (2010); Garvare and
Johansson (2010); Li et al. (2018b); Lin et al. (2017); Olanipekun (2016); Oyebanji et al.
(2017); Scerri and Magee (2012); Silvius (2017); Tabassi et al. (2016); Wong et al. (2010);
Zhang et al. (2017)
C12 Project norms (e.g. requirements and contracts) Tan et al. (2011); Latham (1994); Hughes et al. (2015)
C13 Political values of stakeholders Chinyio and Akintoye (2008); Eskerod and Huemann (2013); Silvius (2017)
C14 Project human resource management Ali and Al Nsairat (2009); Bourdeau (1999); Chawla et al. (2018); Eskerod and Huemann
(2013); Eyiah-Botwe et al. (2016); Hill and Bowen (1997); Hwang and Ng (2013); Martens
and Carvalho (2017); Silvius (2017); Zuo et al. (2012)
C15 Prevention and mitigation measures against air, water and noise Apine and Escobar Valde s (2017); Faniran and Caban (1998); Lu and Yuan (2010); Menassa
pollution and energy consumption in the implementation phase and Baer (2014); Shen et al. (2007); Wong et al. (2013)
C16 Waste production in the implementation phase Faniran and Caban (1998); Lu and Yuan (2010); Maltzman and Shirley (2010); Silvius (2017)
C17 Compliance with national policies and laws Betts et al. (2015); Bohari et al. (2017); Bon and Hutchinson (2000); Chang et al. (2018); Feige
et al. (2011); Liao et al. (2016); Nawi et al. (2011); Teng et al. (2017); Zhang et al. (2017)
C18 Availability of amenities, community and welfare facilities and Li et al. (2012); Doussoulin and Bittencourt (2018)
provision of public open space
C19 Workplace health and safety Kubba (2012); Li and Wang (2016); Liao et al. (2016); Pan et al. (2018b); Shen et al. (2007);
Yang and Zou (2014); Yang et al. (2016)
C20 Building integrity e safety of building materials Kibert (2016); Pan et al. (2018b); Yang and Zou (2014); Yang et al. (2016)
C21 Site cleaning conditions Shi et al. (2016); Wong et al. (2016)
C22 Training project staffs Gan et al. (2015); Kubba (2012); Yan and Leung (2003)
C23 Innovation in construction Gluch et al. (2009); Li and Wang (2016); Moreno Marchal (2017); Pan et al. (2018a); Retzlaff
(2010); Shafii et al. (2006)

obtained by multiplying fields of conflict/salience attributes matrix
in salience attributes/stakeholders' types matrix based on Equation
(2). The results are displayed in Appendix A (Fig.A.5). We defuzzi-
fied triangular fuzzy numbers by applying the Equation (4) and
thereby obtained the average of summation for each area of conflict
as well as each type of stakeholders. The far right column shows the
average of summation of defuzzified results for each area of conflict
and the bottom row shows the average of summation of defuzzfied
results for each stakeholder types. Fig. 6 depicts the ranking of the
final results of study for both the areas and the stakeholders. The
results of the fields of conflicts/stakeholders' types matrix are
defuzzified as it can be used as a proper stage to validate the
multiplication of matrices, comparing Mitchell et al. (1997)'s
model. The defuzzified status of fields of conflicts/stakeholders'
types matrix is displayed in Appendix A (Fig.A.6). As the last row of
Fig.A.6. shows the stakeholders with equal number of attributes
have the same value. Therefore, it verifies the assumption that we
assumed all attributes have the same weight.
Step 6. Formation and introduction of the stakeholders' types/
project values matrix:
In this step, we determined the relationship between stake-
holder types and project values during semi-structured interviews
 A. Bahadorestani et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 242 (2020) 118402
Fig. 6. The rank of conflict areas.
with some experts from the project management team (Table 3)
that were familiar and involved with the project across its value
dimensions. Finally, four experts (a project manager, two project
manager consultants, and a HR manager) qualified and participated
in data collection. Therefore, we asked them “To what extent a
stakeholder type can impact project values?” In other words, “How
important is a stakeholder type to create or add values to project?”.
For example, how important are definitive stakeholders (a stake-
holder that has power, legitimacy, and urgency in project) to create
or add values to project? The average input of experts' opinions
about DMM of stakeholders’ types/project values are displayed in
Appendix A (Fig.A.7).
Step 7. Formation and introduction of the fields of conflicts/
project values matrix
This matrix is the result of multiplying Step 5 in Step 6 as shown
by Equation (3). It depicts the importance of conflict areas for
project. The higher matrix elements’ values indicates more
importance of the corresponding conflicts. The results of this step
are displayed in Appendix A (Fig.A.8).
Fig. 6 shows the importance of various conflict areas. The values
have been earned by defuzzifying the data in fields of conflicts/
project values matrix. The project management team (Table 3) can
11
use it to plan steering committees, since they determined stake-
holders’ salience attributes. According to Fig. 6, the field of
"Workplace health and safety" and "Political values of stakeholders"
have the maximum and minimum values in prioritizing the steer-
ing committees to assign the project resources, while resolving the
conflicts in each committee through negotiation.
4.7. Verification and validation of the proposed model
Sensitivity analysis is performed to further explore the response
of ranking system by changing the variables to be able assess model
applicability. It further aims to provide analytical support to
investigate the applicability of the model and its possible weakness.
For this purpose, we used local sensitivity analysis in which each
model parameters are varied separately by keeping all other model
parameters constant (Diakite  et al., 2019; Tamang, 2017), while we
adopted the model proposed by Pannell (1997). Accordingly, first,
we determined several scenarios after a process of trial and error,
and the critical scenarios are displayed in Appendix A (Table.A.1).
Actually, we changed DMM1, DMM2, and DMM4 purposefully to
illustrate the changes in ranking matrix. We assumed the stake-
holder typology model (DMM3) does not change during the
12 A. Bahadorestani et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 242 (2020) 118402
analysis, and then illustrated the results (raking matrix) in
Appendix A (Fig.A.9).
To review important observations, we found that: (i): DMM1 is
the most effective parameter in the model, as the results (ranking
matrix) are very sensitive to its changes. As Fig.A.9 shows, maxi-
mization and minimization of the level of conflicting interests for
stakeholder community causes the corresponding fields of conflict
become minimum and maximum in ranking matrix. (ii) DMM2
after DMM1, is the most important parameter of the model, as the
priority of areas of conflicts in rows DMM2-1 to DMM2-10 change for
various scenarios with fluctuations in less than the ones resulting
from the changes in DMM1. (iii) According to Fig.A.9, changes in
DMM4 has negligible effect on results. This can be an interesting
observation, as for example a question may arise as “how can
managers determine the relationship between stakeholders' types
and project values?” or “how can we judge which type(s) of
stakeholders can create more value and how?”. However, the
analysis illustrates that DMM4 cannot have considerable impact on
ranking matrix. They can only help to translate fields of conflicts/
stakeholders' types matrix to fields of conflicts/project values ma-
trix. Therefore, users can average all elements of a row of fields of
conflicts/stakeholders’ types matrix to earn ranking matrix (iv) in
addition, the results illustrate the sensitivity of a DMM in the model
depends on the degree of the matrix (number of rows and col-
umns). In this study, the degree of parameters DMM1, DMM2, and
DMM4 were 23*11, 11*3, and 7*1, respectively. This illustrates that
the accurate identification of two main domains “fields of conflicts”
and “project stakeholders” can considerably impact the results.
However, managers can balance the effect of DMM degrees through
introducing similar components of a domain as a broader compo-
nent. For example, if the number of fields of conflict is large,
managers can introduce all dimensions related to quality thin the
technical considerations.
The validation and verification of the model is also investigated
externally and internally. For external validation and verification,
we presented the model to two subject-matter experts (with more
than 7-year experience in sustainable projects). They investigated
the theoretical and practical aspects of the model. For theoretical
aspect, they believed “overall, the model is logical and works for a
range of projects to further facilitate sustainable stakeholder
engagement.” For practical aspect, they investigated the validity of
model through showcasing, while performed several scenarios to
assess its applicability, as Liu et al. (2014) suggested, and by using
Microsoft Excel (for multiplication). As a simple example, during a
scenario, they assumed all stakeholders had the lowest level of
conflicts for a specific area. Then they compared the findings with a
situation that all stakeholders were weak in a salience attribute and
explored practical implications such as potential for engaging
stakeholders to create impact. For internal verification, we
described all stakeholders' inputs and reminded project manage-
ment team's inputs for experts (Table 3). Then they discussed it
through comparing the fields of conflicts. For example, they
believed that it seems logical to hold steering committee for C13
after other areas of conflicts. Because three project stakeholders S1,
S6, and S10 had conflict in C13, while the political issues are not vital
in this project. Also, they believed C19 is really the most important
issue and thus project management team should address it
immediately.
5. Discussion
5.1. Theoretical implications
As previously mentioned, there is a need for integration of the
input of both stakeholders and the project management team to
engage with project stakeholders' in line with sustainable devel-
opment goals. The theoretical implications of this study include
improving management of stakeholders through gauging the need of
stakeholders and integration of the inputs that are usually
considered in management for stakeholders. Therefore, in the man-
agement of stakeholders, stakeholders are considered as the re-
sources that create value for projects with the project's rights and
values as the priority. In the management for stakeholders, the rights
and values of stakeholders are the priority (Huemann et al., 2016;
Silvius, 2017).
The "so what?" or raison d'e ^tre of this research is to acknowl-
edge the presence of the conflict of interests and resource limita-
tion in addressing them to address the issue of shaping the
steering committees based on the rank of fields of conflicts to
prioritize resource allocation to committees and focus on conflict
areas for management of stakeholders while considering manage-
ment for stakeholders. Therefore, while stakeholder management is
emphasized in prior research, this research aimed for a shift in the
common discourse by providing a realistically feasible strategy for
sustainable stakeholder management through engaging resources
to committees based on the areas of the conflict that impact
project delivery. Accordingly, managers can find an opportunity to
know the attitudes, beliefs, and cultures of stakeholders to achieve
shared perception and increase stakeholder engagement to
advance the project (Mathur et al., 2008; Van Driesche and Lane,
2002). Majority of the previous research on managing conflict of
interests have been using game theory, while this approach does
not include both stakeholders' and decision-makers’ viewpoints
(Yu et al., 2019). Wei et al. (2016) showed that discrepancies of
opinion about project sustainability criteria prevail among
stakeholder-group types in every region that they studied, due to
different needs and concerns and considered to management for
stakeholders. In the presented framework, the value of the project
from the core stakeholder will be integrated with the values and
perceptions of the stakeholders. Therefore, both viewpoints of
managers and stakeholders will be integrated into the decision-
making process to further facilitate sustainable development.
This is also in line with integration of empiricism and rationalism
in stakeholder management (Markie, 2013; Mok et al., 2017; Yang,
2014), as the stakeholder management will be formed by the
perception of the mangers as well as accumulation of the stake-
holders input. The final contribution of this study was to deter-
mine the ranking matrix in which the rank of conflicting areas is
transparent. This matrix can enable managers in projects to
effectively plan stakeholder engagement considering limited re-
sources. It reflects the criticality of conflicting interests of a range
of stakeholders. The ranking matrix can direct managers (or
project management teams) to strategically involve and engage
different stakeholders considering the project resource con-
straints. The managers can use it for efficient understanding and
response to the conflicting areas (Orr and Scott, 2008) and sys-
tematic development of strategies to integrate further input of the
stakeholders on high priorities of the conflict (Valentin et al.,
2018). Acknowledging the existence of the conflicts and quanti-
fying them can systematically inform on critical conflicting areas
that needs to be integrated into the decision. These decisions can
be improved through more systematic input of a broader range of
stakeholders (Valentin et al., 2018). Therefore, managers and
stakeholders can plan for strategies such as compromise, avoid-
ance, holding necessary meeting, committee and workshops to
align stakeholder intentions with project goals in order to mitigate
conflicts (Novoa et al., 2018). As a result, this study contributed to
sustainable stakeholder engagement plan through integrating the
stakeholders' conflicts in projects.
 A. Bahadorestani et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 242 (2020) 118402
5.2. Practical implications
We argued that managers can plan their interactions with
stakeholders through three general strategies: (i) The decision to
engage with stakeholders based on the critical fields of conflicts: in
this case, the fields of conflicts which have higher average values for
all types of stakeholders can be prioritized, (ii) The decision to
engage with stakeholders based on the critical levels of stake-
holders' salience: in this case, the stakeholders who have higher
average values for all salience attributes are prioritized for further
interactions, (iii) The decision to engage with stakeholders based
on the values of ranking matrix: in this case, the stakeholder
engagement plan is established based on the values of the matrix
elements in the fields of conflict/project values matrix. As a result,
practical implications of this study can be in facilitating design of
more efficient and sustainable stakeholder engagement plans.
Stakeholder engagement classification is determined based on the
conflict areas. The fields of conflict, in which the corresponding
matrix elements have a higher average value than the others are
more critical and will get the priority. For example, the conflict
"Political values of stakeholders" has the lowest value, and there-
fore, this field has the lowest priority among conflicts and man-
agers can pursue strategies that focus on more critical areas.
Furthermore, by using ranking matrix, it is possible to identify
and prioritize the required committees for stakeholder engagement
in the decision-making process. Therefore, this matrix will be
helpful in formation of the steering committees. In order to identify
the participants in a specific committee, managers should consider
the stakeholders in accordance with the related rows or columns in
Fig.A1. Also, they can use Fig. 6 to prioritize involvement of com-
mittee members based on the fields of conflicts. Note that higher
variations can be expected in case: 1) the weights of all rows and
columns are not be selected as equal, and 2) the including data in
elements of a matrix are not more scattered. According to Fig.A6,
the stakeholders that have the same number of salience attributes
have almost the same priority, and the stakeholders that have the
same number of salience attributes have the same rank. This result
is intuitive, as we had assumed that all three stakeholder salience
attributes have the same impact on determining stakeholders'
salience. Therefore, these findings can validate the presented
methodology and ranking accuracy.
6. Conclusions and recommendations
On the one side, various stakeholders with different and
sometimes conflicting interests are involved in projects, and each of
them tries to achieve his/her goals, despite the limitations of
project resources. On the other hand, managers may ignore or
undermine conflicting objectives of the stakeholders in projects,
especially the complexity and additional requirements in sustain-
able projects. Therefore, managers need a systematic approach that
can facilitate an appropriate stakeholder engagement plan, in
which both management of stakeholders and management for
stakeholders are considered. In this study, a framework based on the
QFD approach was developed to prioritize the conflicting interests
of the stakeholders through designing the ranking matrix in pro-
jects. To showcase its application, the model was implemented in a
green building project in Iran. The resulted ranking matrix por-
trayed the importance of each field of conflicts for engaging
stakeholders into the project and thereby planning steering com-
mittees. By using this matrix, stakeholder engagement actions were
facilitated, so as to integrate the viewpoints of stakeholders into the
assessments of the managers. Using this matrix also helps man-
agers to experience more flexibility in managing the stakeholders
in a dynamic and complex project environment while considering
13
more critical conflicts and more salient stakeholders. In addition,
this study contributes to decrease the risks in delivering the project
outcomes by managing stakeholder dialogues as highlighted by
Ferri et al. (2016). Since the concept of "risk" means different to
different stakeholders, the proposed model can help managers in
observing what really matter for each stakeholder and whose views
really matter in the end (Renn et al., 2017).
This study had some limitations, and for these limitations some
suggestions can be helpful for future research as follows: (1)
Membership function of fuzzy input in the model inputs and the
assumed weights in model inputs and modeling process can be
determined by combining data collection and analysis methods
such as surveys and multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM)
methods such as Analytical Hierarchy process (AHP) or Analytic
Network Process (ANP) (2) The ranking matrix can be used as an
input to other stakeholder management models for strategy allo-
cation. For example, in order to determine and allocate appropriate
engagement strategies, the Dual Concern Model (DCM) can be in-
tegrated into the matrices (Sudhakar, 2015). (3) In addition to the
basic ranking matrix for a project from the viewpoint of project
managers, each of the stakeholders can apply the provided
framework to design a separate engagement plan with other
stakeholders and the project. The inputs will be same except for the
stakeholders/salience attributes matrix, which is determined based
on the perception of related stakeholder who is designing his/her
ranking matrix. In other words, the stakeholder would determine
the salience attributes of other stakeholders and managers for
designing his/her ranking matrix. Application of multiple ranking
matrix by each stakeholder and contrasting them can further
enhance the understanding of the conflicts and facilitate better
understanding in projects. (4) We suggest that the applied
approach in this study can be developed for other phases of the
project's life cycle in the future through a longitudinal study. (5) In
order to extend the findings of the study, the methods and results of
studies such as Shi et al. (2016) and Sudhakar (2015) can be inte-
grated into the process based on the fields of conflicts. (6) Future
research can investigate the detailed strategies for an individual
committee, while addressing both salience-based and demand-
based approaches.
Since decision-makers determine stakeholders’ importance
(salience) and the impact of stakeholders on project outcome and
values during the modeling process, stakeholders will be involved
earlier in the committees based on their potential impact. There-
fore, the model inherently prioritizes the resources for resolving
the conflicts between the stakeholders with higher priority (ones
who have more impact on project values). As a result, the conflicts
can be resolved at different stages rather than sudden shocks that
may overwhelm the project. Specifically, the proposed model
provides a platform in which the community can plan for their
required through participating in decision-making process and
playing a key role in steering committees for conflicting interests
that are always a challenge in these projects. In this sense, they can
resolve the conflicting interests by stakeholder engagement stra-
tegies such as negotiation through holding committees and thereby
gradually decreasing their concerns.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank all the stakeholders and experts
who participated in the data collection process, as well as Neda
Ghafari-Nikoo Joonaghani (psychologist) and Ahmad Moham-
madzada (construction management specialist) for their contri-
bution in data collection process. Appreciation is finally due to the
editors and anonymous reviewers who provided invaluable com-
ments and suggestions that helped to improve this research.
14 A. Bahadorestani et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 242 (2020) 118402

Appendix A

Table.A.1

Model parameter ID Critical scenarios

DMM1 and DMM2 DMM1-1 and DMM2-1 All matrix elements are maximized
DMM1-2 and DMM2-2 All matrix elements are minimized
DMM1-3 and DMM2-3 The top half of the matrix elements are maximized
DMM1-4 and DMM2-4 The bottom half of the matrix elements are maximized
DMM1-5 and DMM2-5 The top half of the matrix elements are minimized
DMM1-6 and DMM2-6 The bottom half of the matrix elements are minimized
DMM1-7 and DMM2-7 The right half of the matrix* is maximized
DMM1-8 and DMM2-8 The left half of the matrix* is maximized
DMM1-9 and DMM2-9 The right half of the matrix*is minimized
DMM1-10 and DMM2-10 The left half of the matrix* is minimized
DMM4 DMM41 Stakeholders with high level of power, are valuable and have the highest impact on project values.
DMM42 Stakeholders with high level of legitimacy, are valuable and have the highest impact on project values.
DMM43 Stakeholders with high level of urgency, are valuable and have the highest impact on project values.
DMM44 Stakeholders with high level of power and legitimacy, are valuable and have the highest impact on project values.
DMM45 Stakeholders with high level of power and urgency, are valuable and have the highest impact on project values.
DMM46 Stakeholders with high level of legitimacy and urgency, are valuable and have the highest impact on project values.
DMM47 Stakeholders with high level of power, legitimacy and urgency, are valuable and have the highest impact on project values.

Note *: If the number of rows or columns were odd, we considered [number of matrix elements]/2 þ 1).

Fig. A.1. Fields of conflicts/stakeholders matrix

A. Bahadorestani et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 242 (2020) 118402 15

Fig. A.2. Stakeholders/salience attributes matrix

Fig. A.3. Fields of conflicts/salience attributes matrix

Fig. A.4. Salience attributes/stakeholders' types matrix

 Fig. A.5. Fields of conflicts /stakeholders' types matrix

Fig. A.6. Defuzzified fields of conflicts/stakeholders' types matrix

A. Bahadorestani et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 242 (2020) 118402 17

Fig. A.7. Stakeholders' types/project values matrix

Fig. A.8. Fields of conflicts/project values matrix

18 A. Bahadorestani et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 242 (2020) 118402

Fig. A.9. Sensitivity analysis results (rank of the fields of conflicts through critical scenarios)

References Bohari, A.A.M., Skitmore, M., Xia, B., Teo, M., 2017. Green oriented procurement for
building projects: preliminary findings from Malaysia. J. Clean. Prod. 148,
690e700.
Aarseth, W., Ahola, T., Aaltonen, K., Økland, A., Andersen, B., 2017. Project sustain-
Bohari, A.A.M., Skitmore, M., Xia, B., Teo, M., Zhang, X., Adham, K.N., 2015. The path
ability strategies: a systematic literature review. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 35 (6),
towards greening the Malaysian construction industry. Renew. Sustain. Energy
1071e1083.
Rev. 52, 1742e1748.
Abidin, N.Z., 2010. Investigating the awareness and application of sustainable
Bolar, A.A., Tesfamariam, S., Sadiq, R., 2017. Framework for prioritizing infrastruc-
construction concept by Malaysian developers. Habitat Int. 34 (4), 421e426.
ture user expectations using Quality Function Deployment (QFD). Int. J. Sus-
Acharya, D.P., Bajimaya, S., Ferguson, A., 2010. Mid-term Evaluation of Western Terai
tain.Built. Environ. 6 (1), 16e29.
Landscape Complex Project. United Nations Development Programme, Nepal.
Bon, R., Hutchinson, K., 2000. Sustainable construction: some economic challenges.
Ahmad, T., Aibinu, A.A., 2017. Project delivery attributes influencing green building
Build. Res. Inf. 28 (5e6), 310e314.
project outcomes: a review and future research directions. Built. Environ. Proj.
Bosch, S.J., Pearce, A.R., 2003. Sustainability in public facilities: analysis of guidance
Asset. Manag. 7 (5), 471e489.
documents. J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 17 (1), 9e18.
Ahn, Y.H., Pearce, A.R., Wang, Y., Wang, G., 2013. Drivers and barriers of sustainable
Bourdeau, L., 1999. Sustainable development and the future of construction: a
design and construction: the perception of green building experience. Int.
comparison of visions from various countries. Build. Res. Inf. 27 (6), 354e366.
J.Sustain. Build.Technol.Urban. Dev. 4 (1), 35e45.
Carnevalli, J.A., Miguel, P.C., 2008. Review, analysis and classification of the litera-
Akao, Y., Mizuno, S., 1994. QFD: the Customer-Driven Approach to Quality Planning
ture on QFDdtypes of research, difficulties and benefits. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 114
and Deployment. Asian Productivity Organization, Tokyo.
(2), 737e754.
Alborz, N., Berardi, U., 2015. A post occupancy evaluation framework for LEED
Chang, R.-d., Soebarto, V., Zhao, Z.-y., Zillante, G., 2016. Facilitating the transition to
certified US higher education residence halls. Procedia. Eng. 118, 19e27.
sustainable construction: China's policies. J. Clean. Prod. 131, 534e544.
Ali, H.H., Al Nsairat, S.F., 2009. Developing a green building assessment tool for
Chang, R.-D., Zuo, J., Zhao, Z.-Y., Soebarto, V., Lu, Y., Zillante, G., Gan, X.-L., 2018.
developing countrieseCase of Jordan. Build. Environ. 44 (5), 1053e1064.
Sustainability attitude and performance of construction enterprises: a China
Alizar, M.A., Rahadini, A., Love, E., 2008. Engaging Local Government in Promoting
study. J. Clean. Prod. 172, 1440e1451.
Good CSR Practices and Sustainable Development through Multi-Stakeholder
Chawla, V., Chanda, A., Angra, S., Chawla, G., 2018. The sustainable project man-
Engagement.
agement: a review and future possibilities. J. Proj. Manag. 3 (3), 157e170.
AlSanad, S., 2015. Awareness, drivers, actions, and barriers of sustainable con-
Chew, K., 2010. Singapore's strategies towards sustainable construction. IES J. Part A
struction in Kuwait. Procedia. Eng. 118, 969e983.
Civ. Struct. Eng. 3 (3), 196e202.
AlWaer, H., Sibley, M., Lewis, J., 2008. Different stakeholder perceptions of sus-
Chinyio, E.A., Akintoye, A., 2008. Practical approaches for engaging stakeholders:
tainability assessment. Architect. Sci. Rev. 51 (1), 48e59.
s, F.J., 2017. Risk Management in Sustainable Projects in the findings from the UK. Constr. Manag. Econ. 26 (6), 591e599.
Apine, A., Escobar Valde
Danilovic, M., Browning, T.R., 2007. Managing complex product development pro-
Construction Industry: Cases of Swedish Companies.
jects with design structure matrices and domain mapping matrices. Int. J. Proj.
Appelbaum, S.H., Abdallah, C., Shapiro, B.T., 1999. The self-directed team: a conflict
Manag. 25 (3), 300e314.
resolution analysis. Team Perform. Manag.: Int. J. 5 (2), 60e77.
Darko, A., Chan, A.P., Owusu-Manu, D.-G., Ameyaw, E.E., 2017. Drivers for imple-
Bal, M., Bryde, D., Fearon, D., Ochieng, E., 2013. Stakeholder engagement: achieving
menting green building technologies: an international survey of experts.
sustainability in the construction sector. Sustainability 5 (2), 695e710.
J. Clean. Prod. 145, 386e394.
Bellantuono, N., Pontrandolfo, P., Scozzi, B., 2016. Capturing the stakeholders' view
Davis, K., 2014. Different stakeholder groups and their perceptions of project suc-
in sustainability reporting: a novel approach. Sustainability 8 (4), 379.
cess. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 32 (2), 189e201.
Betts, T.K., Wiengarten, F., Tadisina, S.K., 2015. Exploring the impact of stakeholder
Davis, K., 2016. A method to measure success dimensions relating to individual
pressure on environmental management strategies at the plant level: what
stakeholder groups. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 34 (3), 480e493.
does industry have to do with it? J. Clean. Prod. 92, 282e294.
Demirel, H., Balin, A., Celik, E., Alarçin, F., 2018. A fuzzy AHP and electre method for
Bo, Y., 2015. Stakeholder-associated Concerns and Their Interactions in Mega Con-
selecting stabilizing device in ship industry. Brodogradnja: Teorija i praksa
struction Projects: a Social Network Approach. Department of Building and Real
brodogradnje i pomorske tehnike 69 (3), 61e77.
Estate, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University.
Diakite, Z., Corson, M., Brunschwig, G., Baumont, R., Mosnier, C., 2019. Profit stability
 A. Bahadorestani et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 242 (2020) 118402
of mixed dairy and beef production systems of the mountain area of southern
Auvergne (France) in the face of price variations: bioeconomic simulation.
Agric. Syst. 171, 126e134.
Dobrovolskiene, _ N., Tvaronavi ciene,_ M., Tamosiu
 niene,
_ R., 2017. Tackling projects on
sustainability: a Lithuanian case study. Entrepreneurship and sustainability
issues 477e488.
Doussoulin, J.P., Bittencourt, M., 2018. Analysing the circular economy opportunities
in the French construction sector related to the sustainable supply chain: a
waste input-output analysis. Int. J.Supply Chain.Oper.Resilience 3 (2), 143e162.
Durdyev, S., Zavadskas, E.K., Thurnell, D., Banaitis, A., Ihtiyar, A., 2018. Sustainable
construction industry in Cambodia: awareness, drivers and barriers. Sustain-
ability 10 (2), 392.
Eigner, M., Maletz, M., 2008. Potentials of DSM, DMM and MDM for requirements
modeling, DSM. In: Proceedings of the 10th International DSM Conference,
Stockholm, Sweden, pp. 11e12, 2008, 11. 2008.
Eskerod, P., Huemann, M., 2013. Sustainable development and project stakeholder
management: what standards say. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 6 (1), 36e50.
Eskerod, P., Larsen, T., 2018. Advancing project stakeholder analysis by the concept
‘shadows of the context’. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 36 (1), 161e169.
Eyiah-Botwe, E., Aigbavboa, C., Thwala, W., 2016. Mega Construction Projects: using
stakeholder management for enhanced sustainable construction. Am. J. Eng.
Res 5, 80e86.
Faniran, O., Caban, G., 1998. Minimizing waste on construction project sites. Eng.
Construct. Architect. Manag. 5 (2), 182e188.
Feige, A., Wallbaum, H., Krank, S., 2011. Harnessing stakeholder motivation: towards
a Swiss sustainable building sector. Build. Res. Inf. 39 (5), 504e517.
Ferri, L.M., Pedrini, M., Pilato, V., 2016. The management of stakeholder dialogue in
different institutional contexts: an empirical study on FTSE4GOOD companies.
J. Clean. Prod. 136, 226e236.
Flisijn, J., 2018. Sustainable Building in Iran: Case Study: an Animal Hospital and
Wildlife-Rehabilitation Centre. University of Twente.
Gan, X., Zuo, J., Wu, P., Wang, J., Chang, R., Wen, T., 2017. How affordable housing
becomes more sustainable? A stakeholder study. J. Clean. Prod. 162, 427e437.
Gan, X., Zuo, J., Ye, K., Skitmore, M., Xiong, B., 2015. Why sustainable construction?
Why not? An owner's perspective. Habitat Int. 47, 61e68.
Gareis, R., Huemann, M., Martinuzzi, A., 2010. Relating Sustainable Development
and Project Management: a Conceptual model PMI Research and Education
Conference.
Gareis, R., Huemann, M., Martinuzzi, A., Weninger, C., Sedlacko, M., 2013. Project
Management and Sustainable Development Principles. Project Management
Institute.
Garvare, R., Johansson, P., 2010. Management for sustainabilityea stakeholder
theory. Total Qual. Manag. 21 (7), 737e744.
Gluch, P., Gustafsson, M., Thuvander, L., 2009. An absorptive capacity model for
green innovation and performance in the construction industry. Constr. Manag.
Econ. 27 (5), 451e464.
Healey, P., 1996. Consensus-building across difficult divisions: new approaches to
collaborative strategy making. Plan. Pract. Res. 11 (2), 207e216.
Hein, A.M., Jankovic, M., Feng, W., Farel, R., Yune, J.H., Yannou, B., 2017. Stakeholder
power in industrial symbioses: a stakeholder value network approach. J. Clean.
Prod. 148, 923e933.
Heisler, M., 2017. Eliciting personal values of patients with multiple chronic con-
ditions. Why and How 32 (12), 1273e1274.
Heravi, G., Qaemi, M., 2014. Energy performance of buildings: the evaluation of
design and construction measures concerning building energy efficiency in
Iran. Energy Build. 75, 456e464.
Herazo, B., Lizarralde, G., 2016. Understanding stakeholders' approaches to sus-
tainability in building projects. Sustainable cities and society 26, 240e254.
Hernandez, D.J.D., Aspinwall, E., 2007. Improvement methods in UK and Mexican
construction industries: a comparison. Qual. Reliab. Eng. Int. 23 (1), 59e70.
Hill, R.C., Bowen, P.A., 1997. Sustainable construction: principles and a framework
for attainment. Constr. Manag. Econ. 15 (3), 223e239.
Huemann, M., Eskerod, P., Ringhofer, C., 2016. Rethink! Project Stakeholder Man-
agement. Project Management Institute, PA USA.
Hughes, W., Champion, R., Murdoch, J., 2015. Construction Contracts: Law and
Management. Routledge.
Hwang, B.-G., Ng, W.J., 2013. Project management knowledge and skills for green
construction: overcoming challenges. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 31 (2), 272e284.
Hwang, B.-G., Zhu, L., Wang, Y., 2017. Green building construction projects in
Singapore. Proj. Manag. J. 48 (4), 67e79.
Hwang, B.G., Tan, J.S., 2012. Green building project management: obstacles and
solutions for sustainable development. Sustain. Dev. 20 (5), 335e349.
Kaiser, D.B., Ko € hler, T., Weith, T., 2016. Knowledge management in sustainability
research projects: concepts, effective models, and examples in a multi-
stakeholder environment. Appl. Environ. Educ. Commun. Int. J. 15 (1), 4e17.
Kasaei, A., Abedian, A., Milani, A., 2014. An application of Quality Function
Deployment method in engineering materials selection. Mater. Des. 55,
912e920.
Kibert, C.J., 2016. Sustainable Construction: Green Building Design and Delivery, 4
th ed. John Wiley & Sons.
Koskela, L., 1992. Application of the New Production Philosophy to Construction.
Stanford university Stanford, CA.
Kreimeyer, M., Lindemann, U., 2011. Complexity Metrics in Engineering Design:
Managing the Structure of Design Processes. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Kubba, S., 2012. Handbook of Green Building Design and Construction: LEED,
19
BREEAM, and Green Globes. Butterworth-Heinemann.
Lam, K.-C., Tao, R., Lam, M.C.-K., 2010. A material supplier selection model for
property developers using fuzzy principal component analysis. Autom.
ConStruct. 19 (5), 608e618.
Lam, P.T., Chan, E.H., Chau, C., Poon, C., Chun, K., 2011. Environmental management
system vs green specifications: how do they complement each other in the
construction industry? J. Environ. Manag. 92 (3), 788e795.
Latham, M., 1994. Constructing the Team: Joint Review of Procurement and
Contractual Arrangements in the UK Construction Industry. Department of the
Environment, UK.
Li, H., Ng, S.T., Skitmore, M., 2018a. Stakeholder impact analysis during post-
occupancy evaluation of green buildingseA Chinese context. Build. Environ.
128, 89e95.
Li, H., Zhang, X., Ng, S.T., Skitmore, M., 2018b. Quantifying stakeholder influence in
decision/evaluations relating to sustainable construction in ChinaeA Delphi
approach. J. Clean. Prod. 173, 160e170.
Li, T.H., Ng, S.T., Skitmore, M., 2012. Conflict or consensus: an investigation of
stakeholder concerns during the participation process of major infrastructure
and construction projects in Hong Kong. Habitat Int. 36 (2), 333e342.
Li, W., Wang, X., 2016. Innovations on management of sustainable construction in a
large earthwork project: an Australian case research. Procedia.Eng. 145,
677e684.
Liao, P.-C., Tsenguun, G., Liang, L.W., 2016. Development of social responsibility
evaluation framework of construction projects: a multi-stakeholders perspec-
tive. Procedia.Eng. 145, 234e241.
Lin, X., Ho, C.M.-F., Shen, G.Q., 2018. For the balance of stakeholders' power and
responsibility: a collaborative framework for implementing social responsibility
issues in construction projects. Manag. Decis. 56 (3), 550e569.
Lin, X., Ho, C.M., Shen, G.Q., 2017. Who should take the responsibility? Stakeholders'
power over social responsibility issues in construction projects. J. Clean. Prod.
154, 318e329.
Lindemann, U., Maurer, M., Braun, T., 2009. Structural Complexity Management: an
Approach for the Field of Product Design. Springer, Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.
Liu, J., Shahi, A., Haas, C.T., Goodrum, P., Caldas, C.H., 2014. Validation methodologies
and their impact in construction productivity research. J. Constr. Eng. Manag.
140 (10), 04014046.
Liu, J.Y., Low, S.P., Yang, J., 2013. Conceptual framework for assessing the impact of
green practices on collaborative work in China's construction industry. J. Prof.
Issues Eng. Educ. Pract. 139 (3), 248e255.
Lu, W., Yuan, H., 2010. Exploring critical success factors for waste management in
construction projects of China. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 55 (2), 201e208.
Luyet, V., Schlaepfer, R., Parlange, M.B., Buttler, A., 2012. A framework to implement
stakeholder participation in environmental projects. J. Environ. Manag. 111,
213e219.
Maltzman, R., Shirley, D., 2010. Green Project Management. CRC Press.
Manoliadis, O., Tsolas, I., Nakou, A., 2006. Sustainable construction and drivers of
change in Greece: a Delphi study. Constr. Manag. Econ. 24 (2), 113e120.
Marcelino-S adaba, S., Gonz rez-Ezcurdia, A., 2015. Using project
alez-Jaen, L.F., Pe
management as a way to sustainability. From a comprehensive review to a
framework definition. J. Clean. Prod. 99, 1e16.
Markie, P., 2013. Rationalism vs. Empiricism. In: e, S. (Ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy Archive.
Martens, M.L., Carvalho, M.M., 2017. Key factors of sustainability in project man-
agement context: a survey exploring the project managers' perspective. Int. J.
Proj. Manag. 35 (6), 1084e1102.
Mathur, V.N., Price, A.D., Austin, S., 2008. Conceptualizing stakeholder engagement
in the context of sustainability and its assessment. Constr. Manag. Econ. 26 (6),
601e609.
Maurer, M., 2007. Structural Awareness in Complex Product Design. Technische
Universit€ at München.
Maurer, M., 2017. Complexity Management in Engineering DesigneA Primer.
Springer.
Meiboudi, H., Lahijanian, A., Shobeiri, S.M., Jozi, S.A., Azizinezhad, R., 2018. Devel-
opment of a new rating system for existing green schools in Iran. J. Clean. Prod.
188, 136e143.
Menassa, C.C., Baer, B., 2014. A framework to assess the role of stakeholders in
sustainable building retrofit decisions. Sustain. Cities Soc. 10, 207e221.
Mishra, D., Mishra, A., Yazici, A., 2008. Successful Requirement Elicitation by
Combining Requirement Engineering Techniques, Applications of Digital In-
formation and Web Technologies ICADIWT 2008. First International Conference
on the. IEEE, pp. 258e263, 2008.
Mitchell, R.K., Agle, B.R., Wood, D.J., 1997. Toward a theory of stakeholder identifi-
cation and salience: defining the principle of who and what really counts. Acad.
Manag. Rev. 22 (4), 853e886.
Mok, K.Y., Shen, G.Q., Yang, R.J., 2017. Addressing stakeholder complexity and major
pitfalls in large cultural building projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 35 (3), 463e478.
Moreno Marchal, J., 2017. Creative Process in Engineering: Methods, Tools and the
Management Implications, Handbook of the Management of Creativity and
Innovation: Theory and Practice. World Scientific, pp. 237e255.
Mushka, D., 2015. Creating Value for Corporate Sustainability: Stakeholder
Engagement.
Natee, S., Low, S.P., Teo, E.A., 2016. Quality Function Deployment for Buildable and
Sustainable Construction. Springer.
Nawi, M., Nasrun, M., Lee, A., Azman, M.A., Kamar, M., Anuar, K., 2011. The expe-
riences of Malaysian in industrialised building system (IBS) to enhance
20 A. Bahadorestani et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 242 (2020) 118402
construct ability and sustainability in construction project. J. Technol. Oper.
Manag. 6 (2), 1e12.
Novoa, A., Shackleton, R., Canavan, S., Cybele, C., Davies, S.J., Dehnen-Schmutz, K.,
Fried, J., Gaertner, M., Geerts, S., Griffiths, C.L., 2018. A framework for engaging
stakeholders on the management of alien species. J. Environ. Manag. 205,
286e297.
O'Dochartaigh, A., 2017. Stakeholder relationships, engagement, and sustainability
reporting. Soc.Environ. Account. J. 37 (3), 225e226.
Ogunde, A., Olaolu, O., Afolabi, A., Owolabi, J., Ojelabi, R., 2017. Challenges con-
fronting construction project management system for sustainable construction
in developing countries: professionals perspectives (a case study of Nigeria).
Journal of Building Performance 8 (1), 1e11.
Olander, S., Landin, A., 2005. Evaluation of stakeholder influence in the imple-
mentation of construction projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 23 (4), 321e328.
Olanipekun, A.O., 2016. The levels of building stakeholders' motivation for adopting
green buildings. 21st Century Human Habitat: Issues, Sustainability and
Development 8e19.
Olubunmi, O.A., Xia, P.B., Skitmore, M., 2016. Green building incentives: a review.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 59, 1611e1621.
Orr, R.J., Scott, W.R., 2008. Institutional exceptions on global projects: a process
model. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 39 (4), 562e588.
Oyebanji, A.O., Liyanage, C., Akintoye, A., 2017. Critical Success Factors (CSFs) for
achieving sustainable social housing (SSH). Int. J. Sustain.Built. Environ. 6 (1),
216e227.
Pan, M., Linner, T., Cheng, H.M., Pan, W., Bock, T., 2018a. A framework for utilizing
automated and robotic construction for sustainable building. In: Proceedings of
the 21st International Symposium on Advancement of Construction Manage-
ment and Real Estate. Springer, pp. 79e88.
Pan, M., Linner, T., Pan, W., Cheng, H., Bock, T., 2018b. A framework of indicators for
assessing construction automation and robotics in the sustainability context.
J. Clean. Prod. 182, 82e95.
Pannell, D.J., 1997. Sensitivity analysis: strategies, methods, concepts, examples.
Agric. Econ. 16, 139e152.
Pietrosemoli, L., Monroy, C.R., 2013. The impact of sustainable construction and
knowledge management on sustainability goals: a review of the Venezuelan
renewable energy sector. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 27, 683e691.
PMI, 2017. A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK), sixth
ed. Project Management Institute Author, Newtown Square, PA.
Prasad, K., Chakraborty, S., 2013. A quality function deployment-based model for
materials selection. Mater. Des. 49, 525e535.
Qian, Q.K., Chan, E.H., Khalid, A.G., 2015. Challenges in delivering green building
projects: unearthing the transaction costs (TCs). Sustainability 7 (4),
3615e3636.
Renn, O., Pidgeon, N., Slovic, P., Kasperson, R.E., 2017. Whose Views Really Matter in
the End?, Risk Conundrums. Routledge, pp. 24e32.
Retzlaff, R., 2010. Developing policies for green buildings: what can the United
States learn from The Netherlands? Sustain. Sci. Pract. Policy 6 (1), 28e38.
Rondinel-Oviedo, D.R., Schreier-Barreto, C., 2018. Methodology for selection of
sustainability criteria: a case of social housing in Peru. In: The Palgrave Hand-
book of Sustainability. Springer, pp. 385e409.
Scerri, A., Magee, L., 2012. Green householders, stakeholder citizenship and sus-
tainability. Environ. Pol. 21 (3), 387e411.
Scholes, K., Johnson, G., 2002. Exploring Corporate Strategy. Prentice Hall Interna-
tional, NJ.
Schwartz, S.H., 2006. Basic Human Values: an Overview. The Hebrew University of
Jerusalem.
Senecah, S.L., 2004. The trinity of voice: the role of practical theory in planning and
evaluating the effectiveness of environmental participatory processes. In:
Communication and Public Participation in Environmental Decision Making,
pp. 13e33.
Seyis, S., Ergen, E., 2017. A decision making support tool for selecting green building
certification credits based on project delivery attributes. Build. Environ. 126,
107e118.
Shafii, F., Ali, Z.A., Othman, M.Z., 2006. Achieving sustainable construction in the
developing countries of Southeast Asia. In: Proceedings of the 6th Asia-Pacific
Structural Engineering and Construction Conference. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Shahin, A., Bagheri Iraj, E., Vaez Shahrestani, H., 2016. Developing House of Quality
by integrating top roof and side roof matrices and service TRIZ with a case
study in banking services. The TQM Journal 28 (4), 597e612.
Shen, L.Y., Li Hao, J., Tam, V.W.Y., Yao, H., 2007. A checklist for assessing sustain-
ability performance of construction projects. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 13 (4), 273e281.
Shenhar, A.J., Dvir, D., Levy, O., Maltz, A.C., 2001. Project success: a multidimensional
strategic concept. Long. Range Plan. 34 (6), 699e725.
Shi, Q., Yan, Y., Zuo, J., Yu, T., 2016. Objective conflicts in green buildings projects: a
critical analysis. Build. Environ. 96, 107e117.
Silvius, G., 2017. Sustainability as a new school of thought in project management.
J. Clean. Prod. 166, 1479e1493.
SILvIuS, G., Schipper, R., Van Den Brink, J., Planko, J., 2012. Sustainability in Project
Management. Gower Publishing, Ltd.
Simanjuntak, M.R.A., 2017. Risk analysis of inhibitors of sustainable construction
application in building construction project in jakarta. Imp.J. Interdiscip. Res. 3
(7).
Sudhakar, G.P., 2015. A Review of Conflict Management Techniques in Projects.
Tabassi, A.A., Roufechaei, K.M., Ramli, M., Bakar, A.H.A., Ismail, R., Pakir, A.H.K., 2016.
Leadership competences of sustainable construction project managers. J. Clean.
Prod. 124, 339e349.
Tamang, S., 2017. Quantifying Flow and Sediment Yield of an Ungauged Catchment
Using a Combination of Continuous Soil Moisture Accounting and Event-Based
Curve Number Method.
Tan, Y., Shen, L., Yao, H., 2011. Sustainable construction practice and contractors'
competitiveness: a preliminary study. Habitat Int. 35 (2), 225e230.
Teng, Y., Mao, C., Liu, G., Wang, X., 2017. Analysis of stakeholder relationships in the
industry chain of industrialized building in China. J. Clean. Prod. 152, 387e398.
Thamhain, H., 2013. Managing risks in complex projects. Proj. Manag. J. 44 (2),
20e35.
UN, 2015. Transforming Our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable development
Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly.
Valentin, V., Naderpajouh, N., Abraham, D.M., 2018. Integrating the input of
stakeholders in infrastructure risk assessment. J. Manag. Eng. 34 (6), 04018042.
Van Driesche, J., Lane, M., 2002. Conservation through conversation: collaborative
planning for reuse of a former military property in Sauk County, Wisconsin,
USA. Plan. Theory Pract. 3 (2), 133e153.
Wallbauma, H., Silvab, L., Plessisc, C., Coled, R., Hoballahe, A., Kranka, S., 2010.
Motivating Stakeholders to Deliver Change, 3rd International Holcim Forum for
Sustainable Construction-“Reinventing Construction”. Universidad Iberoamer-
icana, Mexico City.
Wei, H.-H., Liu, M., Skibniewski, M.J., Balali, V., 2016. Conflict and consensus in
stakeholder attitudes toward sustainable transport projects in China: an
empirical investigation. Habitat Int. 53, 473e484.
Whang, S.-W., Kim, S., 2015. Balanced sustainable implementation in the con-
struction industry: the perspective of Korean contractors. Energy Build. 96,
76e85.
Williams, T.M., 1997. The Need for New Paradigms for Complex Projects, Managing
and Modelling Complex Projects. Springer, pp. 9e18.
Wilson, I.E., Rezgui, Y., 2013. Barriers to construction industry stakeholders'
engagement with sustainability: toward a shared knowledge experience.
Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 19 (2), 289e309.
Wong, J.K.W., San Chan, J.K., Wadu, M.J., 2016. Facilitating effective green procure-
ment in construction projects: an empirical study of the enablers. J. Clean. Prod.
135, 859e871.
Wong, J.M., Ng, S.T., Chan, A.P., 2010. Strategic planning for the sustainable devel-
opment of the construction industry in Hong Kong. Habitat Int. 34 (2),
256e263.
Wong, P.S., Ng, S.T., Shahidi, M., 2013. Towards understanding the contractor's
response to carbon reduction policies in the construction projects. Int. J. Proj.
Manag. 31 (7), 1042e1056.
Yan, H., Leung, K., 2003. Environmental concerns in the Hong Kong construction
industry: an empirical study. Int. J. Constr.Manag. 3 (1), 83e94.
Yang, R.J., 2014. An investigation of stakeholder analysis in urban development
projects: empirical or rationalistic perspectives. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 32 (5),
838e849.
Yang, R.J., Zou, P.X., 2014. Stakeholder-associated risks and their interactions in
complex green building projects: a social network model. Build. Environ. 73,
208e222.
Yang, R.J., Zou, P.X., Wang, J., 2016. Modelling stakeholder-associated risk networks
in green building projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 34 (1), 66e81.
Yin, B.C.L., Laing, R., Leon, M., Mabon, L., 2018. An evaluation of sustainable con-
struction perceptions and practices in Singapore. Sustain. Cities Soc. 39,
613e620.
Yu, T., Liang, X., Shen, G.Q., Shi, Q., Wang, G., 2019. An optimization model for
managing stakeholder conflicts in urban redevelopment projects in China.
J. Clean. Prod. 212, 537e547.
Zarghami, E., Azemati, H., Fatourehchi, D., Karamloo, M., 2018. Customizing well-
known sustainability assessment tools for Iranian residential buildings using
Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process. Build. Environ. 128, 107e128.
Zhang, W., Zhao, H., 2014. Research on the maturity model of conflict management
in engineering project. Open J. Soc. Sci. 2 (03), 6.
Zhang, Y., Wang, J., Hu, F., Wang, Y., 2017. Comparison of evaluation standards for
green building in China, Britain, United States. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 68,
262e271.
Zuo, J., Zillante, G., Wilson, L., Davidson, K., Pullen, S., 2012. Sustainability policy of
construction contractors: a review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 16 (6),
3910e3916.